How is knowledge obtained, according to O'ism?

[Woxor]

In Objectivism, "arbitrary" means "unrelated to reality", not "unecessary"; in other words the concept "arbitrary" presupposes "reality".  But even if we take your definition,  accepting "existence" is no way unnecessary, for to deny it is to deny the existence of "truth" itself.  Deny existence, and you deny the existence of everything.  So how could it be "unnecessary" to assume it?

One could simply not assume anything, or not assume anything having to do with actual truth. "Necessary in order to make sense or do anything useful" is fine with me -- "inherently necessary" is not.

I doubt that you question the fact of existence itself. I believe what you question is the concept you call "objective reality", which in Objectivism is "the primacy of existence"--the fact that reality exists independent of any consciousness.

Yeah, it would be logically impossible to deny the existence of that which exists, but I'm not even necessarily contesting the primacy of existence (I do believe that reality is objective). It's all a matter of epistemology -- I don't think it is necessarily true that reality is objective.

[RadCap]

"One could simply not assume anything, or not assume anything having to do with actual truth. "Necessary in order to make sense or do anything useful""

This is impossible.

A - Necessary - what is that?

B - Something.

A - Ah - so it has identity. How do you know it has identity?

B - Because I am aware of it.

A - Ah - so it exists. And you are conscious of it.

No escaping this. The moment you open your mouth and make ANY statement, you AUTOMATICALLY identify and accept as VALID the three axioms of objectivism. You do not assume them. You do not guess at them. You do not prove them.

You perceive? Yes. Then they are.

Period.

[Tom Rexton]

One could simply not assume anything, or not assume anything having to do with actual truth.  "Necessary in order to make sense or do anything useful" is fine with me -- "inherently necessary" is not.

Yeah, it would be logically impossible to deny the existence of that which exists, but I'm not even necessarily contesting the primacy of existence (I do believe that reality is objective).  It's all a matter of epistemology -- I don't think it is necessarily true that reality is objective.

You can certainly assume nothing and just die. But it is the absolute necessity for knowledge (one cannot know anything unless there is something to know), which is why it is the starting point of epistemology.

[Woxor]

This statement seems to be your fundamental premise in this discussion.  It is false.

Which statement, the one in the second sentence? "That's fine"?

And the error comes from not identifying the concept 'logic'.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

I'm not sure what you mean by "identification."

The axioms of objectivism are identified, and are not contradictory.  Thus they ARE logical.  To claim that they are ILLOGICAL you would have to show how they are either contradictory or non-existent (thus unidentifiable).  You have done neither.  As such, you have no basis to claim they are illogical.

I'm not really claiming that the axioms are contradictory, and I have no idea how any abstract idea like an axiom would "exist." I'm simply disputing the method with which the axioms are obtained and the characterization of them afterward as necessary.

Now - as you acknowledge - the objectivist axioms cannot be PROVED via reason and logic (because they are the FOUNDATION for them).  But they CAN be VALIDATED.  They CAN be said to accurately identify facts of reality.  And this is done via direct reference to the senses.

When you sense something - ANYTHING - that sensation is your validation:

So, the axioms can be observed? In that case, they are inductive inferences that you stated before you made your observations -- hardly things appropriately termed "axioms."

If there is something that you sense, then there IS some thing you sense.  (axiom - existence)

If there is something that you sense, then there is SOME thing you sense.  (axiom - identity)

If there is something that you sense, then there is something YOU sense. (axiom - consciousnes)

Existence is a valid axiomatic concept because there IS something you sense.

Identity is a valid axiomatic concept because there is SOMETHING you sense.

Consciousness is a valid axiomatic concept because there is something YOU sense.

I don't think any meaningful information can be extracted from tautologies. Also, emphasis (i.e. your capitalization) isn't really something that logic handles very well -- all three statements technically say the same thing, regardless of the intended meaning.

This is not 'mere' "common sense" as OPPOSED to logic.  This IS logic.  It is non-contradictory identification of three FUNDAMENTAL facts of reality - THE three fundamental facts of reality.

This is even further from the appropriate application of logic, since you seem to be claiming that these tautologies describe reality in some way. I don't think that tautologies are capable of describing reality.

How can existence be known to exist?  By reference to the fact that you PERCEIVE it.

Using existence to mean "that which exists," yeah, it exists by definition. But regarding the objectivity of reality, perception is not a perfect epistemic method. There is no way to determine with complete certainty whether your perceptions are due to an objective reality or due to deception. If you want to equate existence with objective reality, you can do that, but it's still potentially divorced from perception, which means the validation you spoke of is not flawless.

With what degree of certainty can existence be known to exist?  Complete certainty, BECAUSE you perceive it.

If perception implies 100% certainty, then people have been 100% certain of ridiculous things that they halucinated or imagined. I would think it obvious that perception is fallible.

[Woxor]

"One could simply not assume anything, or not assume anything having to do with actual truth. "Necessary in order to make sense or do anything useful""

This is impossible.

A - Necessary - what is that? 

B - Something. 

A - Ah - so it has identity.  How do you know it has identity? 

B - Because I am aware of it.

A - Ah - so it exists.  And you are conscious of it.

No escaping this.  The moment you open your mouth and make ANY statement, you AUTOMATICALLY identify and accept as VALID the three axioms of objectivism.  You do not assume them.  You do not guess at them.  You do not prove them.

You perceive?  Yes.  Then they are. 

Period.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. It's extremely easy to speak without thinking, so it's not quite correct to imply that making a statement implies the acceptance of anything. Furthermore, it's not necessary that one make any statements at all.

[Woxor]

You can certainly assume nothing and just die.  But it is the absolute necessity for knowledge (one cannot know anything unless there is something to know), which is why it is the starting point of epistemology.

lol I don't think death is implied by lack of assumption. Chimps aren't exactly Objectivists, and they're still around.

I'm fine with the rest of that, though -- it can be necessary for knowledge and the starting point for epistemology.

[RadCap]

Ok - this needs to stop.

W essentially is denying EVERYTHING - including the validity of the senses, the distinction between existence and non-existence (identified as a tautology by him), etc. There is NO way he will learn otherwise here. He simply has TOO much to learn before he can even reach the part of philosophy he seeks to understand

W - If you are ACTUALLY interested in understanding the Objectivism, you need to read Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. It explains the both the metaphysical and the epistemological fundamentals which will provide you the basis to understand the questiosn you are asking and refute the fallacoes you are engaging in.

A forum is not a school. It cannot undo all the falsehoods you have learned and accepted.

I suggest you read it because you CANNOT get your answers here. The format of a forum is simply not equiped to teach you what you need to learn. An essay cannot teach you what you need to learn. An entire article cannot teach you.

BTW _ I have to say that your claim you are not a student of philosophy is dubious, to put it mildly. You know far to much about the subject, far too many specifically philosophic terms, and far too many very specific philosophic arguments and objections to never have studied the subject before.

Given your responses - especially the most recent ones, it appears you are a major troll.

[nimble]

I would have to agree with Rad Cap. If you were to go back and review a few of your posts, you would realize that you are using circular arguments, and hiding behind the concept of infallibility. If you remotely believe that reality is objective, then how is perception going to change that?

I am going to paraphase Atlas Shrugged to make a quick point. You know that humans possess consciousness. That is self-evident. A consciousness conscious of only itself is a contradiction. It must first be conscious of SOMETHING, before it can label itself as consciousness. Thus is the concept of an objective reality. you must IDENTIFY SOMETHING. That allows the discovery of existence and that reality lies outside of consciousness. These are axioms: The foundation of knowledge. You have no choice in the matter of axioms. You accept and validate them with every breath you take.

[Woxor]

I don't understand how you cannot acknowledge the fallibility of perception -- that is the very essence of subjectivity, and yet the contrary claim is being made.

I came here to attempt to reconcile my beliefs with the philosophy of Objectivism, but that seems impossible since the traditional logic which I am used to has been flatly rebuffed. Though I am sure the advice falls on deaf ears, I think some (not all) of you would probably do well to examine things more closely and less passionately. Towards the end, my arguments and questions received little in the way of specifically tailored responses and more of the same illogical reactionism that first drove me away from Objectivism. This discourages me from taking Objectivism seriously, though I realize that the members do not necessarily represent the actual philosophy.

It appears I have inadvertently worn out my welcome. Rad Cap, you seem to have a lot of unwarranted hostility, though I thank you for your earnestness.

I have been debating philosophy for years, but I have never taken a philosophy class in school. I am not a troll -- I study chemical engineering and pure mathematics at Texas A&M and find philosophy interesting at times. I believe everything I have posted here and have been as honest as possible.

I post on Hobbes, a forum that GreedyCapitalist occasionaly ventures into (that's how I found out about these forums). You will find that my beliefs represented there are the same as those here. I post as Woxor, though the appearance of my name in that forum has been altered to the Prince symbol. I can be found there on the off-chance that anyone wishes to contact me. I would be happy to discuss it further there, but I feel that I am intruding here. As I promised, I'm leaving now.

[nimble]

so let me get this straight, you study math? Yet if you claim that reality is subjective, how exactly do you know that what you study is real? How do you know that those principles in math are true? Were they not discovered by some FALLIBLE man with FALLIBLE senses, who cannot claim certainty? yet you still study mathematics even though you have no idea if what you are learning is true? Why spend 25000+ a year on college if you dont know what you are learning is even going to be true? Kinda sounds like a dumb investment to me.

[RadCap]

"Unwarranted hostility"

LOL.

My responses were not hostile, and they were most certainly warranted by what can only be ddescribed as purposeful evasion of arguments.

The number of skins to the onion simply became too many to refute.

Anyway - good bye

[stephen_speicher]

I don't understand why you would imply that identifying the notion of objective reality as an arbitrary assumption makes it any more difficult to understand the world than identifying it as a necessary truth.  Even if knowledge has no more than arbitrary foundation, this can still be worked with.

The advantage of building a system based on self-evident truths is that you can be sure of the foundation upon which you build, right from the beginning. If philosophy is a system of ideas that you use to guide your life, then arbitrarily choosing the wrong foundation can lead to frustration and despair. Or, even, to death. The point is, if you base your foundation on the arbitrary then you will only know if your system has value to your life by testing it. And as far as I know we only get one time around and by the time the results of the test are in, it may be too late.

Calculus and geometry are built upon arbitrary axioms, but both are rigid, logical, and useful.  Why should our axiomatic model of reality suffer from additional requirements that obviously do not hinder mathematics?

I do not think that the issue is quite as obvious as you say. In mathematics we do not start with truly arbitrary axioms. Existing axiomatic systems have certain features that have been shown to be of value. For instance, minimal assumptions in regard to structure or properties, which is demonstrated by showing the axioms to be mutually independent. One method for doing this is demonstrated in the classic example of the Cayley-Klein model of Bolyai-Lobachevski geometry, wherein the Euclidean parallel postulate is shown to be independent of the remaining axioms of Euclidean geometry.

Even the great Hilbert, in his famous lecture to the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900, stated:

"I think that wherever, from the side of the theory of knowledge or in geometry, or from the theories of natural or physical science, mathematical ideas come up, the problem arises for mathematical science to investigate the principles underlying these ideas and so to establish them upon a simple and complete system of axioms, that the exactness of the new ideas and their applicability to deduction shall be in no respect inferior to those of the old arithmetical concepts."

Hilbert had just previously demonstrated for Euclidean geometry the independence of five major groupings of axioms.

I don't consider myself confused, just unsure of Objectivist epistemology.

Easily remedied. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/pro...aitem=1&mitem=3

[RadCap]

I do not think that the issue is quite as obvious as you say. In mathematics we do not start with truly arbitrary axioms. Existing axiomatic systems have certain features that have been shown to be of value.

Stephen,

Not only that, but the mathematical axioms are ultimately expressions of the law of identity, are they not? In other words, while they are axiomatic in the particular field, because the field is derived from the principles of philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology), so too the mathematical axioms are ultimately derived from the philosophic axioms (mostly identity).

In other words, they are not arbitrary at all.

[DPW]

You can certainly assume nothing and just die.  But it is the absolute necessity for knowledge (one cannot know anything unless there is something to know), which is why it is the starting point of epistemology.

And more than that, the question is not: can man have knowledge? It is self-evident that he does. The very fact we are no communicating via the Internet proves it. So the only question is, how does man gain knowledge? And how does he distinguish knowledge from error?

[DPW]

BTW _ I have to say that your claim you are not a student of philosophy is dubious, to put it mildly.  You know far to much about the subject, far too many specifically philosophic terms, and far too many very specific philosophic arguments and objections to never have studied the subject before.

Given your responses - especially the most recent ones, it appears you are a major troll.

I do not think it is helpful to posit someone's dishonesty without sufficient evidence. Moreoever, I will not allow people who disagree with us but who remain polite and refrain from emotional arguments to be shouted down as trolls. Do not do it again.

[DPW]

The advantage of building a system based on self-evident truths is that you can be sure of the foundation upon which you build, right from the beginning. If philosophy is a system of ideas that you use to guide your life, then arbitrarily choosing the wrong foundation can lead to frustration and despair. Or, even, to death. The point is, if you base your foundation on the arbitrary then you will only know if your system has value to your life by testing it. And as far as I know we only get one time around and by the time the results of the test are in, it may be too late.

Now that is an argument, in the proper sense of the word. No matter the objections of one's opponents, one must never grant them the premise that remaining tied to the real world is somehow "non-intellectual," or arbitrary, or inexact. It isn't.

[BrentRolfe]

When someone posts a question, receives an answer and asks for clarification perhaps, just perhaps, they are neither stupid nor anti-Objectivist?!

Perhaps, they are just looking for further knowledge to increase their understanding?

If those members of the board who are experienced Objectivists read a reply to such a post that you understand and think is a full and fair Objectivist answer to the question (because of your greater experience of and knowledge in Objectivism), but which clearly did not satisfy the asker, perhaps a better response would be to attempt an answer in another way? So that the asker has an opportunity to see the Objectivist explanation in a different light?

"Dogmatic" is the wrong word to describe the Objectivists I have come across here. However, to some of us who are genuinely interested in enquiring about the philosophy of Objectivism, self-righteousness (as defined in the Canadian Oxford at least) comes pretty close to describing the tone of those of you who seem to have more knowledge than patience.

I think that some of us newbies (me for one) come here to see if the perfectly succesful ways in which we are already (and independently) managing our lives (financially, socially, morally, etc.) can be encompassed and explained by an existing, complete philosophy. If they can, then we too will have found an intellectual home in Objectivism. And though we can and are, of course, happy living our lives totally independant of any formal system, we would like to be part of a larger community of similar thinkers.

But to a youngster who has read some philosophy and enjoys the intellectual challenge of philosophical ideas, some of the replies here are just unfair and unfriendly and unnecessary by any standard.

If Objectivists are certain of the intellectual base on which their philosophy is built then the questioning of a newcomer to the board asking perfectly legitimate questions in a perfectly civil way should be an opportunity to

encourage a potential friend and no truly wise person would treat it as an opportunity to show-off their own cleverness (at the expense of the self-declared neophyte)......which I think is done a lot here.

Just my two cents worth.

Regards,

Brent

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen,

Not only that, but the mathematical axioms are ultimately expressions of the law of identity, are they not?

They can be, and should be. However, the fact of the matter is that a great deal of mathematics does not yet have a proper axiomatic base. And, despite this fact, mathematics is an invaluable tool and remains a cornerstone of all science and technology. Ayn Rand provided the proper axiomatic basis for philosophy, but before that people still thought and lived happy and productive lives.

We cannot beat a mathematician over the head with axiomatic principles, especially when we have not yet ourselves identified those foundational aspects of mathematics. Woxor seems to honestly reflect a prevailing view -- one that has been very successful -- so I would rather appeal to that sense of honesty with smaller steps, rather than clobbering him with a philosophical jackhammer. He has expressed an interest in Objectivism and I responded with some practical facts that I hope he will consider.

[DPW]

If Objectivists are certain of the intellectual base on which their philosophy is built then the questioning of a newcomer to the board asking perfectly legitimate questions in a perfectly civil way should be an opportunity to encourage a potential friend and no truly wise person would treat it as an opportunity to show-off their own cleverness (at the expense of the self-declared neophyte)......which I think is done a lot here.

Sadly, I have to agree with the gist of your post, although I would say that the posters most guilty of the approach you discuss are not showing off how clever they are. I think there are other factors at work, but I don't like making unspecified charges, and I don't have enough evidence to make specified ones.

In any case, while I have no problem with calling a spade a spade (or a troll a troll), I'm tired of watching people who have an honest interest in Objectivism run out of town, charged with intellectual dishonesty in the course of a few posts. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior, especially not from people who call themselves Objectivists.

Let's be clear: I'm not David Kelley. I do not endorse toleration or anything of that sort. But not all errors are evasions, and not all opponents are trolls.

Objectivism Online is fast becoming THE place to come if you want to discuss and debate Objectivism on the Internet. Let's not ruin that by forgetting our manners.

[BrentRolfe]

DPW,

Thank you for that.

I take your point re indiscriminately labelling people as show-offs. I do not mean to imply that this is the motive behind many posters here or that it is consistently the motive behind those that sometimes do engage in it. Just that I find that on philosophy boards in general there is a tendency to engage in intellectual one-up-manship (perhaps it's the nature of the subject?), which is generally detrimental to understanding.

My only point is; more light less heat.

Thanks,

Brent

[nimble]

Objectivism Online is fast becoming THE place to come if you want to discuss and debate Objectivism on the Internet.  Let's not ruin that by forgetting our manners.

Im glad someone other than me thinks that way.

[AshRyan]

..."just look" is not logical.

I find it amusing that someone who at first purported to be in agreement with the Objectivist idea that all knowledge is ultimately based on sense perception then blatantly rejects an appeal to sense perception as valid--and later explicitly trots out the usual objections to perception, calling it "the very essence of subjectivity." Why did he initially object to a priori knowledge, when that is what he later demands? Of course, if he studied Objectivism, he would understand the position (which he found shocking) that perception is not subjective--it can't be, since it is not volitional, and is in fact our one direct, infallible link to reality. It is only on the conceptual level that one may depart from reality and the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity comes into play. But he is not actually interested in learning about Objectivism, just finding holes in it whatever position it actually takes. ("You derive knowledge from a priori knowledge? Not good enough, it should come from perception. Oh, that's not actually the Objectivist position? My mistake. Objectivism does base knowledge on perception? Not good enough, that's subjective and not logical." Etc.)

[DavidV]

Objectivism Online is fast becoming THE place to come if you want to discuss and debate Objectivism on the Internet.  Let's not ruin that by forgetting our manners.

Thanks DPW.. and Amen.

[Capitalism Forever]

Whoa! Brent and Don, you have been throwing around serious accusations of bad manners on the part of "many posters." I think it is time you name the exact posters you are accusing and point out the statements you consider ill-mannered.

I have found this thread an instructive read because Woxor is almost like an embodiment of rationalism. If anyone ever wonders what exactly it means for one's thinking to be disconnected from reality, we can point him to Woxor's reaction to the validation of the axioms:

I don't think any meaningful information can be extracted from tautologies. Also, emphasis (i.e. your capitalization) isn't really something that logic handles very well -- all three statements technically say the same thing, regardless of the intended meaning.

Any person interested in real philosophy--that is, a guide to one's life, as opposed to Kantian "pure reason"--will understand what RadCap meant by those "tautologies," recognize the inescapability of the axioms, confirm them as a proper foundation for a philosophy, and eagerly move on to learn more about the philosophy. It takes a die-hard rationalist to react to the above by analyzing and "grading" it in terms of formal logic.

Now, does this make Woxor an immoral person? As Betsy explained the other day, rationalism is not necessarily a sign of immorality, as it is caused by automated psycho-epistemological habits. I could imagine that Woxor does not think of philosophy as a life-and-death question, just as an amusing "hobby" that people engage in from time to time--sort of like a logical game. He thought he would sit down and play a round with us.

But, regardless of whether the above hypothesis is true, we can definitely say that Woxor is not an actively virtuous person, as a virtuous person would be concerned about his life; he would recognize that there ARE life-and-death questions, and that Objectivism addresses these questions. He would not waste his time questioning the obvious (the tautologous, if you like ) but would focus his interest on what NON-obvious things Objectivism has to say about those life-and-death questions he faces.

We can also definitely say that Woxor is not (yet?) a serious student of Objectivism. He may not be malevolent, but he is a rationalist, and Objectivism is NOT a rationalist philosophy. A serious student of Objectivism is not one who wants sits down and play a round of Logic with us, without ever connecting the "moves" in the "game" to his life. If a person does not accept the FOUNDATION of Objectivism, he cannot seriously study it; he is the equivalent of a schoolboy who does not see why he should learn to read. As soon as Woxor recognizes the connection between our axioms and his life--as soon as he becomes interested in philosophy as a guide to his life rather than a logical game--he will be qualified to study Objectivism. But until then, the forum for students of Objectivism is not the forum for him--and I appreciate that he recognized this and left on his own initiative.

[DPW]

Whoa! Brent and Don, you have been throwing around serious accusations of bad manners on the part of "many posters." I think it is time you name the exact posters you are accusing and point out the statements you consider ill-mannered.

I didn't throw around anything, and I do not want to get into which specific posters I was addressing. To quote Rand, "If the shoe fits, wear it with my compliments." I would rather give the posters guilty of that sort of behavior a chance to recognize it and change it on their own without having me identify them publicly. If someone wants to know whether or not I was referring to them, or wants me to clarify the sort of behavior I was condemning, I am willing to do that privately.

Now, does this make Woxor an immoral person? As Betsy explained the other day, rationalism is not necessarily a sign of immorality, as it is caused by automated psycho-epistemological habits. I could imagine that Woxor does not think of philosophy as a life-and-death question, just as an amusing "hobby" that people engage in from time to time--sort of like a logical game. He thought he would sit down and play a round with us.

But, regardless of whether the above hypothesis is true, we can definitely say that Woxor is not an actively virtuous person, as a virtuous person would be concerned about his life; he would recognize that there ARE life-and-death questions, and that Objectivism addresses these questions. He would not waste his time questioning the obvious (the tautologous, if you like ) but would focus his interest on what NON-obvious things Objectivism has to say about those life-and-death questions he faces.

For the record, I regard this as bordering on psychologizing and would put it in the realm of things I'd rather not see on the board (our wonderful host has the last word on the matter, of course).

As an aside, if someone isn't immoral and isn't virtuous, what the heck is his moral status?

We can also definitely say that Woxor is not (yet?) a serious student of Objectivism. He may not be malevolent, but he is a rationalist, and Objectivism is NOT a rationalist philosophy. A serious student of Objectivism is not one who wants sits down and play a round of Logic with us, without ever connecting the "moves" in the "game" to his life. If a person does not accept the FOUNDATION of Objectivism, he cannot seriously study it; he is the equivalent of a schoolboy who does not see why he should learn to read. As soon as Woxor recognizes the connection between our axioms and his life--as soon as he becomes interested in philosophy as a guide to his life rather than a logical game--he will be qualified to study Objectivism. But until then, the forum for students of Objectivism is not the forum for him--and I appreciate that he recognized this and left on his own initiative.

Since when was this board reserved for people who are students of Objectivism? On the contrary, the rules are explicit:

Agreement with Objectivism is not required to participate in the forums, as anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s ideas may join and off topic discussions are allowed -- but they must not be disruptive or off-topic from the particular forum they’re in.

Woxor was respectful, polite, on-topic, non-emotional, and non-disruptive. In this regard, he was one of the better opponents we've seen on these pages - I was certainly learning a lot from debating him. Yet he was run out of town by a poster who accused him, not simply of having a bad psycho-epistemology (which I think he did), but of being "dishonest" and a "troll." Not only was there no evidence for either of those accusations, there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.

As someone very active in the Objectivist movement, I am also very big on quality control. When people who call themselves Objectivists act in a manner oppossed to Rand's philosophy, by judging before identifying, my patience runs very thin. In this particular case, it was stretched past its limits.